| 🇺🇸Presidential debate round 1 - “Matchday thread”🇺🇸 01:18 - Sep 29 with 199017 views | Dr_Parnassus |
Who will be watching? First one kicks off in 24 hours time.
The Democrats have pulled Joe back from his campaign trail recently to get him prepared, so hopefully it will be a decent exchange.
Unfortunately they don’t seem to have great confidence as they have spent the last month looking for any dirt they can dig up so Joe can use if he gets stuck.
It’s no coincidence that this vote influencing Facebook algorithm story is being shamelessly and inaccurately made into a race issue on the eve of the debates. So transparent and disingenuous, it’s a shame politics has come to this on this level where black people are being used in this way to score political points. I would be furious if I was them, but it does seem a lot of people are not falling for this one and calling it out for what it is.
People finally seem to be getting wise to this political race baiting which is refreshing to see.
It’s also telling that in the week of the debate they try and paint Trump as a tax evasion offender. I think that’s what they wanted the tax returns to show, they seem to have got annoyed when it turns out his tax returns were fine in accordance to what his companies profits were - but decided to run with it anyway. Any news is good news in their mind as it’s another thing Joe can use when in a tricky spot.
But I hope the discussions remain political and doesn’t turn into some form of gossip peddling reality TV episode.
Although I think there should be some kind of drinking game involved if it does turn that way, how many times Biden completely loses his thread of thought and blurts out “I mean, think about it...” you have to take a shot. 
I will be watching with great interest anyway.
This post has been edited by an administrator |  |
| |  |
| 🇺🇸Presidential debate round 1 - “Matchday thread”🇺🇸 on 00:25 - Nov 29 with 1371 views | Gwyn737 |
| 🇺🇸Presidential debate round 1 - “Matchday thread”🇺🇸 on 00:17 - Nov 29 by Dr_Parnassus |
He didn’t debunk anything, he said he saw no evidence of mass cyber security threats. Which of course he would say considering it was his job to keep the election secure, which is questionable at this point in time.
It’s remarkable how many state they don’t listen to conspiracy theories yet kept quiet when the Russia investigation was going on for years, said nothing when people were trying to make out Hunter Biden's laptop was a creation of Russia and a plant that involved hundreds of people and extreme accuracy.
It’s almost like it’s only a conspiracy theory when it suits... |
Any concrete evidence that any contents of hunter Biden’s laptop makes his father unable to be president? |  | | |
| 🇺🇸Presidential debate round 1 - “Matchday thread”🇺🇸 on 00:30 - Nov 29 with 1360 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| 🇺🇸Presidential debate round 1 - “Matchday thread”🇺🇸 on 00:25 - Nov 29 by Gwyn737 |
Any concrete evidence that any contents of hunter Biden’s laptop makes his father unable to be president? |
That’s not the point I made. I made the point that those that state “conspiracy theories” are often those that ignore them or even partake in them if they are convenient. This conspiracy theory was of the very existence of the laptop, not the weight of evidence.
But yes there was evidence on the laptop of wrong doing by both Hunter and Joe. What do you determine as concrete evidence? | |
| |
| 🇺🇸Presidential debate round 1 - “Matchday thread”🇺🇸 on 00:33 - Nov 29 with 1356 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| 🇺🇸Presidential debate round 1 - “Matchday thread”🇺🇸 on 00:23 - Nov 29 by Gwyn737 |
No, I’m not stating there is no evidence.
There is no evidence yet to be proved, and from what I see, the alleged evidence (take out the bonkers stuff, which in fairness you've not wed yourself too) is not even close to overturning any county, state or national result.
For the sake of balance, there wasn’t anything in the 2016 election to justify a change either. |
All that has to be proven is that the vote was unsafe.
You need about 80,000 votes to overturn the decision as an actual vote. Although I would imagine even half of that would throw the election into such doubt that the election process will be bypassed and put to the electoral college.
Which again is why universal mail in voting is one of the most stupid ideas in the history of elections. But it wasn’t done to be a good idea, it was done to be a beneficial one.
And yes, I don’t necessarily believe (or disbelieve) any evidence until it is proven to me beyond reasonable doubt in my mind, be that from the left or right. But I recognise there is an awful lot of it. [Post edited 29 Nov 2020 0:40]
| |
| |
| 🇺🇸Presidential debate round 1 - “Matchday thread”🇺🇸 on 01:47 - Nov 29 with 1328 views | Groo |
| 🇺🇸Presidential debate round 1 - “Matchday thread”🇺🇸 on 23:13 - Nov 28 by Dr_Parnassus |
Also important to note that fraud is not part of the court case because it’s a minefield.
To claim fraud you have to prove intent, which is nigh on impossible. For example if I decided to withhold thousands of votes from being uploaded from strong Biden areas... that’s fraud, I would be defrauding the process intentionally.
If I get caught or an audit happens, I have the fallback of saying “oh I forgot”. Then that is not fraud but human error.
So all the court cases can do is point out error and the more errors that are found that happen to be overwhelmingly one way, will prove fraud and intentional malpractice by weight of number and probability. |
Trouble is, in Court they haven't given any evidence of fraud or shown any errors.
All the cases, with their affidavits have been thrown out, the judges comments on some of these affodavits are cringeworthy, remember Trump's team offered financial rewards for people's testimonies.
So what I gather what you are saying, if you organise a large enough number of cases, with little evidence, you can take this to a higher court and say "look at all these cases".
Make's it sound like one big organised con. [Post edited 29 Nov 2020 1:48]
|  |
| Groo does what Groo does best |
| |
| 🇺🇸Presidential debate round 1 - “Matchday thread”🇺🇸 on 01:54 - Nov 29 with 1325 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| 🇺🇸Presidential debate round 1 - “Matchday thread”🇺🇸 on 01:47 - Nov 29 by Groo |
Trouble is, in Court they haven't given any evidence of fraud or shown any errors.
All the cases, with their affidavits have been thrown out, the judges comments on some of these affodavits are cringeworthy, remember Trump's team offered financial rewards for people's testimonies.
So what I gather what you are saying, if you organise a large enough number of cases, with little evidence, you can take this to a higher court and say "look at all these cases".
Make's it sound like one big organised con. [Post edited 29 Nov 2020 1:48]
|
No, that is not what I am saying. I think my point is clear.
District courts can adjudicate on district matters and view things in isolation. The vast majority of these court cases have been heard in Democrat strongholds and the overwhelming rule seems to be ''they don't want to disenfranchise the people that voted''. However the argument is if these accusations are true then they have already been disenfranchised.
If you show 2 errors or malpractices in one district, and the defence is human error, then its a case of error. If you have 2 errors or malpractices in 40 districts and all 80 ''errors'' favoring Biden - Supreme Court can look at the overall national cases and then adjudicate likely fraud should these errors all be going one way, or an incredibly unlikely proportion of them.
If fraud is deemed to be in place then the election can be deemed unsafe and it be handed over to the Electoral College. This is a constitutional practice.
In short, it is very easy to make a human error defence in isolated incident, very tough to do so when it is multiple times and consistently one way. Only Supreme Court would be able to adjudicate on the overall picture, district courts will be adjudicating on the isolated. [Post edited 29 Nov 2020 1:58]
| |
| |
| 🇺🇸Presidential debate round 1 - “Matchday thread”🇺🇸 on 02:39 - Nov 29 with 1312 views | DJack |
 |  |
| It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. - Carl Sagan |
| |
| 🇺🇸Presidential debate round 1 - “Matchday thread”🇺🇸 on 02:53 - Nov 29 with 1311 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| 🇺🇸Presidential debate round 1 - “Matchday thread”🇺🇸 on 02:39 - Nov 29 by DJack |
|
I'm not on any of them, even the ones crossed out. You wish I was though...
I am stating facts, simple as that.
Much to your annoyance.  | |
| |
| 🇺🇸Presidential debate round 1 - “Matchday thread”🇺🇸 on 03:59 - Nov 29 with 1303 views | DJack |
| 🇺🇸Presidential debate round 1 - “Matchday thread”🇺🇸 on 02:53 - Nov 29 by Dr_Parnassus |
I'm not on any of them, even the ones crossed out. You wish I was though...
I am stating facts, simple as that.
Much to your annoyance. |
Who said it was about you? | |
| It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. - Carl Sagan |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| 🇺🇸Presidential debate round 1 - “Matchday thread”🇺🇸 on 04:02 - Nov 29 with 1301 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| 🇺🇸Presidential debate round 1 - “Matchday thread”🇺🇸 on 03:59 - Nov 29 by DJack |
Who said it was about you? |
The fact I was the last to comment and your silly meme says ''you''.
Sounds like you have since realised your error so that's OK. | |
| |
| 🇺🇸Presidential debate round 1 - “Matchday thread”🇺🇸 on 11:19 - Nov 29 with 1240 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| 🇺🇸Presidential debate round 1 - “Matchday thread”🇺🇸 on 00:11 - Nov 29 by majorraglan |
I am not going to waste my time looking at the rantings of barm pots and conspiracy theorists, lots of allegations have been made of large scale fraud etc but to date not a great deal of evidence has been forthcoming and produced in a Court of law. We even had Chris Krebs, director of Cyber and Infrastructure Security Agency debunk the allegations of fraud hence his sacking.
I am not discounting the possibility of fraud, I will keep an open mind and await the outcome of the various litigations, but as things stand evidence is thin on the ground. |
Good morning Ostrich with head firmly buried in the sand.
5 states were caught on live TV transferring Trump votes to Biden.
No Barm Pots or any kind of theorists.
Of course that is not evidence, because you can't believe your lying eyes can you, so best not to look, it might shake your faith in repeating the mantra, "there is no evidence of fraud".
"there is no evidence of fraud"
"there is no evidence of fraud"
"there is no evidence of fraud"
Say it as often as you like, it does not make it true, as much as you want it to. | | | |
| 🇺🇸Presidential debate round 1 - “Matchday thread”🇺🇸 on 18:10 - Nov 29 with 1177 views | britferry |
Wisconsin recount that cost Trump's campaign $3 million finds an EXTRA 87 votes for Biden - proving he won the key swing state by more than 20,000 votes in yet another blow to president's bid to overturn his loss  | |
| |
| 🇺🇸Presidential debate round 1 - “Matchday thread”🇺🇸 on 18:39 - Nov 29 with 1164 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| 🇺🇸Presidential debate round 1 - “Matchday thread”🇺🇸 on 18:10 - Nov 29 by britferry |
Wisconsin recount that cost Trump's campaign $3 million finds an EXTRA 87 votes for Biden - proving he won the key swing state by more than 20,000 votes in yet another blow to president's bid to overturn his loss |
I thought you would have realised by now that re-counts are meaningless without auditing every single ballot paper for correctness. | | | |
| 🇺🇸Presidential debate round 1 - “Matchday thread”🇺🇸 on 18:46 - Nov 29 with 1152 views | Joe_bradshaw |
| 🇺🇸Presidential debate round 1 - “Matchday thread”🇺🇸 on 18:39 - Nov 29 by A_Fans_Dad |
I thought you would have realised by now that re-counts are meaningless without auditing every single ballot paper for correctness. |
Makes you wonder why Trump keeps asking for them. |  |
| |
| 🇺🇸Presidential debate round 1 - “Matchday thread”🇺🇸 on 18:47 - Nov 29 with 1151 views | DJack |
| 🇺🇸Presidential debate round 1 - “Matchday thread”🇺🇸 on 04:02 - Nov 29 by Dr_Parnassus |
The fact I was the last to comment and your silly meme says ''you''.
Sounds like you have since realised your error so that's OK. |
I didn't quote you you idiot I just added it to the thread.
So once again your reasoning is wrong.
The only error is yours. | |
| It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. - Carl Sagan |
| |
| 🇺🇸Presidential debate round 1 - “Matchday thread”🇺🇸 on 19:34 - Nov 29 with 1131 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| 🇺🇸Presidential debate round 1 - “Matchday thread”🇺🇸 on 18:47 - Nov 29 by DJack |
I didn't quote you you idiot I just added it to the thread.
So once again your reasoning is wrong.
The only error is yours. |
Sure you did. I’m sure we all believe you.
Like I said, you got it wrong.
Again. | |
| |
| 🇺🇸Presidential debate round 1 - “Matchday thread”🇺🇸 on 19:40 - Nov 29 with 1129 views | DJack |
| 🇺🇸Presidential debate round 1 - “Matchday thread”🇺🇸 on 19:34 - Nov 29 by Dr_Parnassus |
Sure you did. I’m sure we all believe you.
Like I said, you got it wrong.
Again. |
So you can read minds now.
You are deluded. You have a pathological inability to accept that you can get things wrong.
YOU WERE AND STILL ARE WRONG. | |
| It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. - Carl Sagan |
| |
| 🇺🇸Presidential debate round 1 - “Matchday thread”🇺🇸 on 19:44 - Nov 29 with 1127 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| 🇺🇸Presidential debate round 1 - “Matchday thread”🇺🇸 on 19:40 - Nov 29 by DJack |
So you can read minds now.
You are deluded. You have a pathological inability to accept that you can get things wrong.
YOU WERE AND STILL ARE WRONG. |
So who was it you were referring to then?
As it stands you were completely wrong.
But happy to look into your appeal. Name names. | |
| |
| 🇺🇸Presidential debate round 1 - “Matchday thread”🇺🇸 on 19:46 - Nov 29 with 1122 views | DJack |
| 🇺🇸Presidential debate round 1 - “Matchday thread”🇺🇸 on 19:44 - Nov 29 by Dr_Parnassus |
So who was it you were referring to then?
As it stands you were completely wrong.
But happy to look into your appeal. Name names. |
Appeal?
You're the arbiter of naff all.
As I said, deluded and pathologically unable to accept that you can be wrong. | |
| It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. - Carl Sagan |
| |
| 🇺🇸Presidential debate round 1 - “Matchday thread”🇺🇸 on 19:47 - Nov 29 with 1120 views | majorraglan |
| 🇺🇸Presidential debate round 1 - “Matchday thread”🇺🇸 on 20:57 - Nov 28 by A_Fans_Dad |
How about a Judge then, seeing as you have decided to deliberately ignore the absolute experts in their fields of forensic investigations.
Pennsylvania Judge Patricia A. McCullough ruled that the Pennsylvania preliminary ELECTION CERTIFICATION injunction was PROPERLY ISSUED and should be upheld.
ps the old saying "there are none so blind as those who do not wish to see" suits you down to a T. [Post edited 28 Nov 2020 21:09]
|
Case was kicked out by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court over the weekend without permission to appeal. No mention of fraud by the way.
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/pennsylvania-supreme-court-denies-bid-trump-alli | | | |
| 🇺🇸Presidential debate round 1 - “Matchday thread”🇺🇸 on 19:48 - Nov 29 with 1117 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| 🇺🇸Presidential debate round 1 - “Matchday thread”🇺🇸 on 19:46 - Nov 29 by DJack |
Appeal?
You're the arbiter of naff all.
As I said, deluded and pathologically unable to accept that you can be wrong. |
Yes appeal.
Continue and I will have you for contempt of court. You have one chance to prove you were not wrong as it appears you were...
So again, who were you referring to then? | |
| |
| 🇺🇸Presidential debate round 1 - “Matchday thread”🇺🇸 on 19:50 - Nov 29 with 1113 views | A_Fans_Dad |
Did you see the reason given for rejecting it?
They took too long making it.
As if there is a time limit on such considerations.
It, along with everything else will now go to the Supreme Court. | | | |
| 🇺🇸Presidential debate round 1 - “Matchday thread”🇺🇸 on 19:52 - Nov 29 with 1109 views | ItchySphincter |
| 🇺🇸Presidential debate round 1 - “Matchday thread”🇺🇸 on 23:34 - Nov 28 by Dr_Parnassus |
Yes.
Anyone who keeps harping on the media mantra of “no evidence” really isn’t paying attention to what is actually happening. Which is a prime example of what happens when the media meddle in elections and why it’s imperative that they are not allowed another election where they can manipulate millions of apathetic.
There is mounds of evidence. What these people may mean is that there may not be enough to convict or to rule, which is another argument altogether.
If you stole my bike and someone saw you steal my bike, they come forward as a witness - that’s evidence of theft. However if you deny it, it’s very difficult to prove. That doesn’t mean there was no evidence. |
Explain which part of that is evidence? Or are you saying it’s because some bloke said so.......? 😂. That’s the basis of your argument? 🤣🤣
xx |  |
| |
| 🇺🇸Presidential debate round 1 - “Matchday thread”🇺🇸 on 19:58 - Nov 29 with 1101 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| 🇺🇸Presidential debate round 1 - “Matchday thread”🇺🇸 on 19:52 - Nov 29 by ItchySphincter |
Explain which part of that is evidence? Or are you saying it’s because some bloke said so.......? 😂. That’s the basis of your argument? 🤣🤣
xx |
My argument?
Which argument? I am making a factual statement, it’s not an argument.
It would be better and more productive to tell me which part of that factual statement you don’t think is accurate. | |
| |
| 🇺🇸Presidential debate round 1 - “Matchday thread”🇺🇸 on 19:58 - Nov 29 with 1101 views | majorraglan |
| 🇺🇸Presidential debate round 1 - “Matchday thread”🇺🇸 on 19:50 - Nov 29 by A_Fans_Dad |
Did you see the reason given for rejecting it?
They took too long making it.
As if there is a time limit on such considerations.
It, along with everything else will now go to the Supreme Court. |
When the legislation was introduced last year, there was a 6 month window during which time people could submit objections etc, that window expired in April, seemingly there were no issues or significant objections. Its now become an issue after the Republicans lost.
It may well end up in the Supreme Court, but there’s been no mention of fraud. | | | |
| 🇺🇸Presidential debate round 1 - “Matchday thread”🇺🇸 on 19:59 - Nov 29 with 1096 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| 🇺🇸Presidential debate round 1 - “Matchday thread”🇺🇸 on 19:58 - Nov 29 by majorraglan |
When the legislation was introduced last year, there was a 6 month window during which time people could submit objections etc, that window expired in April, seemingly there were no issues or significant objections. Its now become an issue after the Republicans lost.
It may well end up in the Supreme Court, but there’s been no mention of fraud. |
I have explained why there has been no mention of fraud, several times. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
